OCR Text |
Show W.B. citizens oppose water fee hike p,. T"" " ' " -..i Staff Writer WEST BOUNTIFUL More than 100 residents ventej their frustration with their city council, Thursday, during nearly three hours of heated debate and discussion on the proposed water-use water-use rale tee increases. Presentations by representatives from the city and South Weber Basin Water Ccnservancv District (SWBWCD) explaining the need for citywide improvements to the decaying culinary water system were cut short by angry residents who spoke out in opposition to the proposed rate schedule saying they felt victimized by the city. "When a lot of us moved into West Bountiful about 18 years ago, we were told we had to go on culinary water," resident Gary Spilman explained to the council. "A few years ago, we asked for help in getting secondary water delivered to our homes and were told there was no more .secondary water to buy. Now you're trying to penalize us for something we have no control over." According to the May 1992 Water Citizens Advisory Committee Report distributed at the meeting, the recent development of ShopKo and the Gateway Crossing project "brought to light substantial inadequacies in the City's culinary water system." In fact, West Bountiful worked out a deal with the city of Bountiful whereby West Bountiful could use wuUv I'rxn its sw.i, i'or the commercial developments in case of a fire emergency. That deal will terminate on June 20, 1995. Following the agreement with Bountiful and other water problems facing the city. Mayor Carl Johnson and the West Bountiful City Council called for a commission to study the water needs of the city for the next 20 years. The commission's report calls for improvements and additions to the existing system including a new well and pump station, additional water storace facilities, the replacement of sub-standard lines and an investigation into alternate sources of secondary water for future developments. "The system is barely adequate now and that's just for normal usage. That doesn't taks into consideration if we have a major fire," explained David Hartvigsen, a member of the citizens' culinary water advisory committee. The need for improvements to the system remained undisputed by residents v ho saic they understood that the changes were necessary for their growng city. The ratt schedule which the city intends to impose on culinary water users throughout the city, however, incensed these residents. "The whole city needs to be updated. If that's the case, then the whole city, all l lie taxpayers, should bear the burden of the costs to the city," resident Wayne Georee told the council. Although the water advisory committee proposed a rate fee schedule which would pay for the estimated SI. 75 million in repairs to the culinary water system, they also advised in the report, "Residents who must use culinary water tor outside watering should not be penalized for their increased water needs," according to the report. Currently, West Bountiful residents pay the lowest monthly culinary wafer rates of any of the four surrounding cities. At a fee of $6.50 per month, West Bountiful residents pay $2.25 less than Woods Cross residents, more than $3 per month less than Bountiful or Farmington residents, and $12.25 less per month than residents of Centerville. A water rate schedule developed and introduced by Councilman Bruce Talbot which would create a $!0 base fee and raise the current water usage rate of 50 cents per 1,000 gallons to 75 cents per 1,000 gallons met with overwhelming opposition as residents explained the financial burden increased ihein. "There arc a lot of people who live on fixed incomes," explained one resident. "In the 11 years since I started living here, my city bill has doubled, my sewage bill has doubled and my water bill has doubled. If you raise my rates you're just going to have to turn my water off." and a number of independent residences in the northern end town currently no alternative but to u-.e ciilii'ry v. ater to irrigate their lawns and gardens as well as for household use. Mark 'Anderson, SWBWCD water engineer, explained to the crowd that while the district currently has no additional secondary water to sell, it is working on two new wells within the city. The wells, Anderson explained, will be drilled to culinary standards for future culinary water use, but will be used as a source ot secondary system back-up water. Because they will meet culinary standard, however, users of the secondary-quality water . will be charged the current culinary rate of f $132 per acre foot or 40.5 cents V . t "in 'i,-.-. .' - t- ---s - than the city currently charges. "The city is willing io pay the SEE WATER ON A-3 Water CONTINUED FROM A-2 st for future development but the Vay was neIipent in not forcing the developer to place secondary water lines in our area. Why can't the city rectify that?" Charnelle Subdivision resident Val Dawson Qed the council. Talbot told the audience that their decision to purchase the properties without secondary water was their mistake as residents complained that many of them had no idea that a secondary water system was ir. effect here. '"You made that choice," Tn!bot tu!d :'. V-jir.. ; i.-!!;:v ::'nd. "Let me point out another at inequity in your thinking. We're le talking about a 192 percent er increase for the guy who usually ts pays $6.40 per month and only a id 142 percent increase for a resident er who uses 25.000 gallons per month." Talbot explained. Dt In fact, the new water usage fee schedule, if accepted as proposed Thursday, would increase 259 i percent for the user of only the minimum 10,000 gallons per month ant' 221 percent lor a resident who us?s 25.000 gallons per month. Residents pointed out the disparity between water bill costs ! for those who must use culinary water to keep their neighborhoods from reaching blight conditions to those who use secondary water. "If you ra:s'.- your bill 200 percent th:-.;'s only going from $6.50 to $13, but if you raise my bill by 200 percent we're talking about more than $100 each mon'h just for the water bill," Richard Rowe, a Charnelle resident, explained. Councilman Craig Hammond said that he believed that raising tlu base rate uniformly throughout the city would be to the disadvantage of the residents who have no alternative to culinary water for outdoor use. I "No. A s s u ir i ,i y o ',; h :, v e j secondary water, it would be to your disadvantage. You could raise my base rate by S50 or S75 and it would still be to my advantage," Rowe explained. Residents succested that the base rale be increased to spread the expense of the improvements equally across the shoulders of the residents while maintaining the I ' water usage rate at cost. The only representative on the citizens advisory commii'.ee from a culinary-only use area, LaRene Vaughn, said she did not feelresidents would be penalized if Talbot's proposed water use rate schedule is accepted. "I don't feel, right now, that with these rates we are being penalized," Vaughn said. The council will review its proposal and reconvene at a budget I planning public hearing Tuesday evening, June 2 at 6:30 p.m. in city hall where further discussion of the water rate schedule may be discussed. |